The Constitutional Court (MK) reviews the resumed trial of the Act number 28 of 2009 on Regional Taxes and Levies in case number 30/PUU-XI/2013. Applicant consisting of three businessmen and seven service users gym or fitness center questioned the provisions of Article 42 paragraph (2) letter i of the Act governing the imposition of entertainment tax on services of a fitness center or fitness center.

In the trial led by Chief Justice M. Akil Mochtar, Monday (10/06), the government presented two witnesses and two experts to give an explanation to the Constitutional Assembly and the applicant regarding the imposition of entertainment tax on services of a fitness center.

One of the government’s proposed experts, Prof. Chandra Fajri Ananda, Professor of the Faculty of Economics, University of Brawijaya, stating fitness center in the Act PDRD is not a form of basic and primary health services. Besides the use of such services is a certain group or a certain income level to fulfill its functions more entertainment or lifestyle that became a trend in certain communities. He said it is natural that groups of people who have the ability to pay more than other people are taxed greater.

The same thing also expressed by Hefrizal Handra, state financial experts from Andalas University in West Sumatra. In testimony presented by the government as an expert, Hefrizal asserted against imposition of entertainment tax service fitness center is not discrimination, because the people who are included in the category of low income can still live healthy by doing exercise without having to use the services of fitness center facilities. He said if the different taxation considered discriminatory, mean the same course considers tax exemption for the poor can also be considered discriminatory.

Hefrizal deplores the efforts of Act filed by the Petitioner, because the petition was more inclined to the efforts of certain groups that are economically to alleviate the tax burden to bear. Experts confirmed the application is weak and entertainment tax provisions of the fitness center services are not discriminatory and do not conflict with the Constitution (Constitution)

Meanwhile, two witnesses proposed by the government is Iwan Setiawandi, Head of Tax Services of Jakarta, and Suhartojo, Head of the Department of Revenue and Financial Management in Surabaya, both testified during this taxing entertainment to fitness center services by 10%, far below the limit of 35% as stipulated in the Act. According to both the percentage of the amount cannot be raised by the city or county government, because it does not specify the amount of entertainment tax should exceed the conditions set by the provincial government set a 10% entertainment tax for the services of a fitness center.

Against the trial judge’s examination of the Constitutional Assembly considered, and each applicant either party, House of People’s Representative (DPR) and the Government are required to submit no later than the conclusion on Monday (17/6) to the Registrar of the Court. (Ilham / mh)